I understand that each pick represents a player, but why settle for low picks? If you don't want just one 2nd round pick, then why not demand both of Cleveland's third round picks (71st and 92nd).

That's 467 points but so what? The question for Cleveland is: "Do you want him or not?". Cleveland has 11 picks in the draft, so they certainly have the capacity to pony up the picks. We could send them a low round pick in the trade if it makes them feel better.

I understand that each pick represents a player, but why settle for low picks? If you don't want just one 2nd round pick, then why not demand both of Cleveland's third round picks (71st and 92nd). That would give us 5 picks in the top 100.

That's 467 points but so what? The question for Cleveland is: "Do you want him or not"? Cleveland has 11 picks in the draft, so they certainly have the capacity to pony up the picks. We could send them a low round pick in the trade if it makes them feel better.

Good point...I guess it comes down to how much they want player X and are willing to pay for him. You can squeeze more juice if your guy is there and you got to have him (i.e.-Sanchez to Jets). The other approach is to get more picks to build the belly of your team.

So with all the hubub about trading down, who would we take at #7 or #9.... OT Anthony Davis, OT Bruce Campbell Or OT Charles Brown....

I Dont much care for Bulaga after watching him against Michigan

That's a good question and as much as I like Okung, I would still rather have more picks. We can still get a quality player at #7 or #9. Plus with the extra 2nd or 3rds, we can fill out even more. There will still be some quality there.